Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 224

by Ksevio (#49602403) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down
If someone rents a house, they cannot rent it to another person during that time. A house has physical value, making a new house costs money. The same is not true for a song.

I think there is value in shorter copyright periods. It gives artists protections against their works being ripped off, Longer copyrights don't help that case as much since most works are popular when they are first released, not 150 years after.

Can you tell me the benefit of copyright on works where the artist is dead?

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 224

by Ksevio (#49600585) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

Why? What's "odd" about it? If you build — or purchase — a house, you and your ancestors can live in it forever. Why must a song be ever confiscated from its owner?

If a person makes a house and sells it, then it is no longer theirs to sell (or as you'd say, it's "confiscated"). There are also lots of other people around to sell houses. If you're selling your house for too much, I can buy it from the guy next door.

If we had better laws regarding copyright then we wouldn't need the GPL (though that's also a response to non-open-source software which is a different matter). Code licensing should also not be perpetual

So, we can use the term "stolen", when referring to intangible things, after all? Good to know...

That was a jab at people who say you can "steal" music - glad you got it!

You are right! Under the current system an artist is free to release their works "into the wild" whenever they please. They have a choice between trying to profit and trying to gain renown. You want to take that away (steal) from them, mandating some arbitrary (and short) time limit. I fail to see, how this can possibly be considered "fair".

I'm not advocating for the elimination of copyright - just shortening it to a reasonable period. If copyright lasted 3-7 years (government protected monopoly), artists would still make most of the money they do now (most songs aren't even going to be making money for that long) while society would benefit from having the works come into public domain. Really a win-win situation unless you're a media mega-corp.

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 224

by Ksevio (#49595279) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down
It's sort of an odd arrangement that we provide them a government mandated monopoly over their songs essentially forever. The original intent of copyright was for artists to share their works and in exchange after a limited time, the works would move to the public domain.

Due to abusive legislation, that has been stolen from us. Your great grand-children will be dead before the song you heard on the Top-40 station this morning is in public domain. Even Elon Musk's batteries will be out of patent protection in a couple decades.

Most artists make music because they like it. YouTube is full of artists sharing their works for free. They wouldn't suffer with shorter copyright and we as society wouldn't suffer. Many people see this disconnect which is why services like Grooveshark were able to thrive - they provided an alternative that was easy to use. There shouldn't be any right-to-profit that harms society more than it benefits the profiter.

Comment: Re:It's finally time (Score 2) 314

by Ksevio (#49572095) Attached to: Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

That's a point some people have been pushing hard to get out there, but those programs are both funded separately from the rest of the budget so they are really not relevant when looking at spending/debt.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49502729) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
Sounds like you're just a brainwashed zealot against GMO not interested in the science or validity of what some crackpots on TV say.

In every example you've given, there are valid reasons behind wanting to buy something. There's no other product where we pick an arbitrary component (that some people find scary) and label it with that - especially when that component is meaningless for making a decision.

And I do know people don't care if foods are GMO because they can't name any valid reason for it other than it's labeled GMO. It's like if people didn't want food in red boxes.

As I said earlier - give people ALL the information - give them the exact species of the food they are eating. Telling them "GMO" does not give them information.

Would you be behind a movement to label all foods that contain "Chemicals" with a label that says "Contains Chemicals"?

What about a "Contains poison" label for anything that contains anything that is poisonous given enough of it?

Comment: Re:Better protection against SEO. (Score 1) 276

by Ksevio (#49502543) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Features Would You Like In a Search Engine?
But they are also in the search business since they can't receive money from their advertising customers if they don't receive screenspace from their searching customers. Just because their money comes mostly from advertising, does not make them an advertising company.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49502129) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
But there's no valid decision a consumer could make with a GMO label so it's not an issue of education. To make a valid decision (one that has some scientific backing) they would need much more information. The only reason is people heard GMOs are scary. If enough people demanded it, I'm sure some labels could add "GMO free"...for a price. That's essentially what role organic food fits into so that seems like a valid solution. Since no company has jumped in to provide GMO-free labels on all their products, there's clearly not a market for it.

It's not GMO-free food (or I guess food with GMOs) that people want, it's the labeling. Since consumers can see what foods are labeled with, they have the information to make a buying decision.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49501881) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
If you're saying it's a market decision, then the market will work it out, right?

On the other hand, if you're saying we need to pass regulations to label everything that a few outspoken, science-illiterate, talk show hosts and bloggers say we need to be afraid of, then that's where we have a problem.

It's not like a label "Contains Asbestos" that would signify a clear ingredient with a clear health disadvantage. Putting "GMO" on food would just confuse people even more since they won't know what sort of GMO is in it. It could be one that makes the food less healthy or it could be one that helps stop cancer.

Forcing food to be labeled by the FDA should only be done if there's a scientific reason to do so.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49501649) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
That's entirely correct. Scientifically, there's not reason to label GMO's differently than other foods. Should we label every scary thing in the future? If some one starts a crusade against food grown with manure, do we have to label that? What about food grown from cuttings rather from seed?

The issue isn't that people want to know about what's in their food - the issue is a few nut jobs want to scare people into thinking there's a problem they need to worry about by using terms they don't understand.

As a compromise, why not put the exact species of all foods on the label? If food is made with natural strain CQ94F corn then put that, If it's made with GMO strain CQ94G corn, put that. People that ACTUALLY care can research which strain they like best, while other will continue buying what they normally do. That's much better than the blanket "GMO" label that doesn't say anything useful about the nutrition or quality of the food.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49501033) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
Yes, they could market it differently as "custom corn" or something, but the GMO haters want it to be called GMO. That has scary words like "Genetic" and "Organism" in it which people will be afraid of, same way they're afraid when you tell them their pie has "Chemicals" in it.

Comment: Re:Pander much? (Score 1) 320

by Ksevio (#49500581) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.

And creatures are still evolving. We've seen new pests that are immune to the roundup crops.

Given the right mutations plants could also naturally contain "Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA" (though that's like saying my smartphone shares code with my computer because they both support an API).

Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney

Working...